Question:

With all the high definition, and highly light sensitive videos and cameras out there in the mega mega pixal range, for several years now, how come all of the pictures are either not focused, blurry, etc.,and just plain junk?

Enquiring minds want to know...

---

Account frozen...

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

I dunno, but the little girl was scared. It sounded very loud. If it was actually coming from IT instead of just being wind that is.

Some of the stuff MrGray was posting over the last few months, which he later reported had been debunked/were hoaxes, also had such things. Gasps. Sounding scared. I do not take that as an indication of truth. They could be good actors.

To me the suspicious part is when the video ends right after it zooms away. I mean why not just keep filming it?

Young children don't have to be good actors... I think it's very easy to scare them into thinking that something is worth being frightened of.

---

Happy birthday Calm Chaos!!! Terrible twos?


Calm Chaos... are you feeling it yet?

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

I dunno, but the little girl was scared. It sounded very loud. If it was actually coming from IT instead of just being wind that is.

Some of the stuff MrGray was posting over the last few months, which he later reported had been debunked/were hoaxes, also had such things. Gasps. Sounding scared. I do not take that as an indication of truth. They could be good actors.

To me the suspicious part is when the video ends right after it zooms away. I mean why not just keep filming it?

---

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

I dunno, but the little girl was scared. It sounded very loud. If it was actually coming from IT instead of just being wind that is.

Some of the stuff MrGray was posting over the last few months, which he later reported had been debunked/were hoaxes, also had such things. Gasps. Sounding scared. I do not take that as an indication of truth. They could be good actors.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

Its fake too....

---

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

I dunno, but the little girl was scared. It sounded very loud. If it was actually coming from IT instead of just being wind that is.

---

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

Hmmmm....very tough to determine what that might be.

Could just be a huge spotlight on a helicopter...except for that burst of speed at the end.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

[quote]I just read what you were adding to your post while I was typing mine. It seems you are referring more to doubt and certitude in regard to principles of reality and not entities themselves (universal laws, laws of physics, etc)? I think that might be where we were not understanding eachother.

That may be.

What I am referring to is not the " flat Earth " type of arguments. That has been definitively proven to not be true.

What I am referring to are the questions that have yet to be proven or disproven.

100 years ago....if someone ( even the greatest scientists of the time ) were to be told that we would have a man walk on the Moon...that person would have emphatically said " Balderdash. Impossible. " Now....that was true at the time because of their definition ( according to their knowledge at the time ) of what was possible. Today, however, we know that it not only isn't impossible, but on the contrary, is very possible.

That is why I ask you how something could be defined as " impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Ok. If we state that something is 'impossible' there needs to be a reference to proven and certain facts. These people in your example about space flight from perhaps 100 years ago that might have deemed it 'impossible' clearly had no rational basis for that claim.

Robert. Their statement that it would be " impossible " would have been perfectly rational based on the knowledge they had at the time. You can only say it WASN'T rational using hindsight. That is simply not a good basis for that statement.

But if the claim is made that an action 'X' or the existence of entity 'Y' is impossible to be correct it must be demonstrated by the claimant why it's impossible.

Then what of the people who argue that it's impossible for an unknown species of ape ( Bigfoot perhaps ) to be living in the Northwest Forests? Doesn't your argument falsify their claims because they can't definitively prove it?

If the claim is made from the argument of credulity or imagination then it's dismissed. Those are logical fallacies after all. (It can't be true because I can't imagine it! Or vice versa, 'It is true but I can picture it in my noggin!'.

But isn't that basically what you are doing by saying how far out in left field we are for thinking it may be possible that an unknown species of ape is living in the Northwest Woods??

But all positive claims about reality should be made and understood to be made within the context of the knowledge available at the time. Of course, in cases of absolute certitude one asserts that [i]in principle[/] it is impossible for any new evidence to appear to contradict the purported fact.

But doesn't that go back to the argument about the person 100 years ago saying that it would be impossible to go to the Moon?? He/she made that claim based on the knowledge available at the time. That doesn't mean that they don't have a rational basis for it.

In short, it's generally wiser in my view , to elect to use phrases that allow for undiscovered facts or phenomenon such as 'Very unlikely', or 'probably impossible'.

I would suggest that you stick with the former since " impossible " has yet to be completely defined. :-)

But for more clear cut cases I have no problem with the absolute certitude statement of 'impossible'. It's impossible for a goldfish to leap from his bowl and land on the moon. But it's certainly possible for us to send a goldfish to the moon. It's all about context.

I have no issue with that statement at all...

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Okay R/B, the definitive proof you've been looking for. lol

Now to something more seious (?). I don't know WTH to make of this video supposedly from Australia.

---

Dang. He beat me to it (posting-wise).
"Highly unlikely" was the phrase I used with KM in FlashChat 30 minutes ago.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I just read what you were adding to your post while I was typing mine. It seems you are referring more to doubt and certitude in regard to principles of reality and not entities themselves (universal laws, laws of physics, etc)? I think that might be where we were not understanding eachother.

That may be.

What I am referring to is not the " flat Earth " type of arguments. That has been definitively proven to not be true.

What I am referring to are the questions that have yet to be proven or disproven.

100 years ago....if someone ( even the greatest scientists of the time ) were to be told that we would have a man walk on the Moon...that person would have emphatically said " Balderdash. Impossible. " Now....that was true at the time because of their definition ( according to their knowledge at the time ) of what was possible. Today, however, we know that it not only isn't impossible, but on the contrary, is very possible.

That is why I ask you how something could be defined as " impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Ok. If we state that something is 'impossible' there needs to be a reference to proven and certain facts. These people in your example about space flight from perhaps 100 years ago that might have deemed it 'impossible' clearly had no rational basis for that claim.

But if the claim is made that an action 'X' or the existence of entity 'Y' is impossible to be correct it must be demonstrated by the claimant why it's impossible. If the claim is made from the argument of credulity or imagination then it's dismissed. Those are logical fallacies after all. (It can't be true because I can't imagine it! Or vice versa, 'It is true but I can picture it in my noggin!'.

But all positive claims about reality should be made and understood to be made within the context of the knowledge available at the time. Of course, in cases of absolute certitude one asserts that [i]in principle[i/] it is impossible for any new evidence to appear to contradict the purported fact.

In short, it's generally wiser in my view , to elect to use phrases that allow for undiscovered facts or phenomenon such as 'Very unlikely', or 'probably impossible'.

But for more clear cut cases I have no problem with the absolute certitude statement of 'impossible'. It's impossible for a goldfish to leap from his bowl and land on the moon. But it's certainly possible for us to send a goldfish to the moon. It's all about context.

But to repair back to the issue at hand. I still don't see the need to require omniscience to achieve certainty. Use my earth bound goldfish as an example. More complex issues will still follow the same structural arguments. Even something like faster than light travel is either possible or impossible. I won't claim to know FIRSTHAND about the matter but am prepared to take Einstein's word for it. I think it's important to be cognizant of the fact that just because we may lack a certain understanding in regard to a field or a particular issue does not impose upon the Universe the very definite and supposedly true claim of metaphysical possibility or impossibility.

There are basically two uses of the concept of possible.
1. in reference to something metaphysical ie about reality and the things in it and what they are capable of doing.

2. in reference to ourselves where the concept is used to describe our state of mind in regard to the things we contemplate in reality itself.

I hope this makes it clearer.

ps Please remit $1.99 a minute to my private message box for each minute you've taken to read the above message.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

" impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Like you getting a tall pretty Blond named "Inga" as a girlfriend.....
Is it Possible or impossible?

Wont Know until you try.....

Exactly...lmao

I could always run into the blind deaf/mute one....lmao

Shes Mine!

DAMN!!!

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

" impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Like you getting a tall pretty Blond named "Inga" as a girlfriend.....
Is it Possible or impossible?

Wont Know until you try.....

Exactly...lmao

I could always run into the blind deaf/mute one....lmao

Shes Mine!

---

" impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Like you getting a tall pretty Blond named "Inga" as a girlfriend.....
Is it Possible or impossible?

Wont Know until you try.....

Exactly...lmao

I could always run into the blind deaf/mute one....lmao

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

" impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

Like you getting a tall pretty Blond named "Inga" as a girlfriend.....
Is it Possible or impossible?

Wont Know until you try.....

---

I just read what you were adding to your post while I was typing mine. It seems you are referring more to doubt and certitude in regard to principles of reality and not entities themselves (universal laws, laws of physics, etc)? I think that might be where we were not understanding eachother.

That may be.

What I am referring to is not the " flat Earth " type of arguments. That has been definitively proven to not be true.

What I am referring to are the questions that have yet to be proven or disproven.

100 years ago....if someone ( even the greatest scientists of the time ) were to be told that we would have a man walk on the Moon...that person would have emphatically said " Balderdash. Impossible. " Now....that was true at the time because of their definition ( according to their knowledge at the time ) of what was possible. Today, however, we know that it not only isn't impossible, but on the contrary, is very possible.

That is why I ask you how something could be defined as " impossible " when we have yet to know everything that IS possible.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I just read what you were adding to your post while I was typing mine. It seems you are referring more to doubt and certitude in regard to principles of reality and not entities themselves (universal laws, laws of physics, etc)? I think that might be where we were not understanding eachother.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Hey folks.

Let's cut Blurf a little slack on this please.

I haven't seen him post here before...and I'm not even sure he even read this thread before. That being said, he probably doesn't know how I do things here.

We can't fault him for trying to do his job. Besides, he was pretty nice about it. His post was just a friendly nudge. He didn't do anything that I didn't do when I was a mod.

Now...Robert...you still haven't told me why I am so wrong when I say that nothing can be truly defined as impossible when man has yet to determine all things which are possible.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this yesterday. But to recap: Think of one thing you know for certain....100% certitude, like the fact you are reading this sentence right now or that you are a living creature or whatever.

Any proposition purporting to contradict this is by definition impossible. It cannot be true...not even remotely true.

I am referring more along the lines of " That's impossible. Science hasn't found anything like that. " Keep in mind that black holes and such were once thought to be " impossible " at one time.

Besides....that still doesn't answer my challenge to you. How can " impossible " be defined, when we don't not know all that IS possible?

I can understand how something that is known ( like you reading this post, that you are a living creature...etc....) could not be shown to be impossible. You don't seem to understand my question though.

I did answer your question. In fact not only did I answer it but I proved it to be a groundless question. There's no other way to better explain it I don't think. I'm not sure why you have this fetish concerning what people think about what's possible or not. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. The Universe doesn't give a damn. Consciousness doesn't precede existence or dictate it's nature, an example of subjectivist epistemology. There are people that think that it is impossible for the earth to not be flat. So?

Why are they wrong? Because their belief contradicts already known and proved facts of reality.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Hey folks.

Let's cut Blurf a little slack on this please.

I haven't seen him post here before...and I'm not even sure he even read this thread before. That being said, he probably doesn't know how I do things here.

We can't fault him for trying to do his job. Besides, he was pretty nice about it. His post was just a friendly nudge. He didn't do anything that I didn't do when I was a mod.

Now...Robert...you still haven't told me why I am so wrong when I say that nothing can be truly defined as impossible when man has yet to determine all things which are possible.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this yesterday. But to recap: Think of one thing you know for certain....100% certitude, like the fact you are reading this sentence right now or that you are a living creature or whatever.

Any proposition purporting to contradict this is by definition impossible. It cannot be true...not even remotely true.

I am referring more along the lines of " That's impossible. Science hasn't found anything like that. " Keep in mind that black holes and such were once thought to be " impossible " at one time.

Besides....that still doesn't answer my challenge to you. How can " impossible " be defined, when we don't not know all that IS possible?

I can understand how something that is known ( like you reading this post, that you are a living creature...etc....) could not be shown to be impossible. You don't seem to understand my question though.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Hey folks.

Let's cut Blurf a little slack on this please.

I haven't seen him post here before...and I'm not even sure he even read this thread before. That being said, he probably doesn't know how I do things here.

We can't fault him for trying to do his job. Besides, he was pretty nice about it. His post was just a friendly nudge. He didn't do anything that I didn't do when I was a mod.

Now...Robert...you still haven't told me why I am so wrong when I say that nothing can be truly defined as impossible when man has yet to determine all things which are possible.

I'm pretty sure I addressed this yesterday. But to recap: Think of one thing you know for certain....100% certitude, like the fact you are reading this sentence right now or that you are a living creature or whatever.

Any proposition purporting to contradict this is by definition impossible. It cannot be true...not even remotely possible to be true.

Furthermore if your above doubts were founded then by logical implication the following would also be true: "Since we cannot know everything we cannot know anything" which of course would be a statement that professes knowledge. So that logical conclusion would therefore be false. It's self contradictory.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!